The Fall Of The Democratic Party

The Establishment will have to pick better candidates in four years. People aren't putting up with their BS anymore. It is the best thing that has
happened to American politics for years. It is beautiful to see people start to expose the corruption. I am proud of Americans this year.

It would really be nice if this election cycle was the fall of both parties, but I don't see that happening...Sanders movement has been hijacked by
Clinton and Trump as made overtures to establishment Republicans. I don't see how anything has changed. Maybe it has a little bit, but until we
start voting our conscience and who we really want in power intstead of a vote for Libertarian is a vote for Hillary or a vote for Jill Stein is a
vote for trump...until we get out of that fear thinking we'll never evolve as a nation.

Okay. I
Can see
This isn't going to matter. But...
She was instrumental in getting special needs education for all disabled children through her work at The Children's Defence Fund. That effects my
life today as my son with autism is being given an excellent public education despite his disability. That has helped MILLIONS of kids and families.
Sorry but that's just a fact.

You make it sound like all she ever did was be born with girl-parts. Sheesh.

This is the first time I've ever heard that any past public service
is an endorsement or qualification to be President.

Also special needs education for disabled children was established
long before Mrs Clinton was ever born. Catholic Churches, not that
I am found of them have been in that practice for over 500 years.

She's earned the hatred, not because of who she is, but because
of the Council of Foreign Relations puppeteers she's aligned with,
who will control her as they've done with Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

I doubt you'll ever take time to unravel the illusion you're living
in concerning our Government, but I'll add the following anyway.

After reading this you'll be faced with a choice between taking the BLUE PILL
which will help you to stay in your blissful state of ignorance and illusion, or
the RED PILL which will lead you to the painful truth of reality.

The New Underworld Order by Christopher Story
Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robison
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Illuminati: The Cult that Hijacked the World by Henry Makow Ph.D.
World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization by Nesta Helen Webster
Votescam: The Stealing of America by James M. Collier
Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr
The Synagogue Of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin
Judaism's Strange Gods by Michael Hoffman
Mind Control by Jim Keith
The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight
Occult Theocrasy by Edith Starr Miller
The Mysteries of Freemasonry by William Morgan
The Operators by Michael Hastings
Righteous Indignation by Andrew Breitbart
Tragedy & Hope by Carroll Quigley
How the Order Controls Education by Anthony C. Sutton

The Establishment will have to pick better candidates in four years. People aren't putting up with their BS anymore. It is the best thing that has
happened to American politics for years. It is beautiful to see people start to expose the corruption. I am proud of Americans this year.

The Establishment picked THESE TWO THIS YEAR. Is the Establishment capable of a hasty reserrection/rehabilitation in 4 years and who is going to
replace all of those brains? You are speaking of a nation of 360 million, some old enough to run for office or vote and these two candidates are the
best we have to offer up to lead the world in freedom/democracy? What is happening; this political cycle gone mad.

I figured that in advance, but now later when finally looking at it all and seeing how the GOP/media/etc tried to smear him like they did Ron Paul
(like the DNC did Bernie, Kucinich) that speaks to me that he isn't their guy.

I figured that in advance, but now later when finally looking at it all and seeing how the GOP/media/etc tried to smear him like they did Ron Paul
(like the DNC did Bernie, Kucinich) that speaks to me that he isn't their guy.

No, but the GOP failed to 'rally' around at least one other of the 15 running against Trump (missed opportunity), or too many choices; no clear front
runner of the 15 (too busy laughing at Trumps candidacy). I would imagine if all was done over again Kasich would have been the parties choice with
Rubio as Vice. Sour grapes; stupidity is rewarded by a double shot combination of "hindsight vs foresight".

This isn't about SIDES or RED or BLUE. It's about PEOPLE. WE the PEOPLE. I know this is a conspiracy site, and you are giving me a list of books by
theorists and right-wing propagandists, which is fine, but what GOOD does any of them do me and my family??? Or anyone???

As to the history of disability and special needs education, here is some information:

Most people were simply, routinely institutionalized. My son definitely would have been due to the level of his disability. The funny thing?
Through education, time and patience, we are learning that he is really smart!!! The thought of him rotting away in one of those places they used to
have...I weep for those children, those people...

In 1965, Senator Robert Kennedy toured the Willowbrook State School in New York. Accompanied by a T.V. crew, he compared the conditions of the
institution to that of a snake pit. The next year, Dr. Burton Blatt and photographer Fred Kaplan used a hidden camera to capture life inside of
Willowbrook. Their photographic essay, Christmas in Purgatory, was published in Life magazine, drawing the largest amount of reader response in the
magazine's history. Dr. Blatt declared that "there is a hell on earth, and in America there is a special inferno" - the institution.

Here is a photographic exhibit of the history of disability... The past is filled with horrors.LINK

It took a Civil Rights Movement of the late 1960's and early 1970's in the US for people with disabilities of all kinds to start getting
treated like humans and not objects of pity to be stuffed away somewhere and trotted out for fundraisers, etc. Even so, our country did not have
provisions for the education of children with disabilities until 1975.

This initial law (Education for All Children) was improved upon and is now the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). President
HW Bush signed it into law. This was due in part by the advocacy of the Children's Defense Fund. The first law (she didn't write it) didn't go far
enough, but it was a foundation which led to the amazing education my son now enjoys.

HRC is one of the people who contributed to and advocated for this report, so that the initial law to include children with disabilities would be
written and passed in Congress. It was put together by many people who were involved in the Fund, which she and everyone also acknowledges.

The story is that she went out to discover why there were children missing from school in New Bedford, AK, going to people's homes to find out what
their story was. She found disabled children that had no way to get to school, to participate in regular school and who were being left behind by our
system. She found out that other people were seeing the same thing.

That was one of the sparks for the creation of the document and the advocacy effort. As a lawyer for the Children's Defense Fund, she testified
before Congress as a part of that effort.

So here's the thing. Democracy works via advocacy (lobbying - whether paid or "of the people") - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the money and
power to enact policy.

That's why groups gather to demonstrate. That's why the Civil Rights marches eventually bore fruit -- they kept at it and brought national attention
to their issues.

It helps to have friendly legislators who we work to elect and who will go to bat for what we want. They write bills that create new laws and work to
pass them in Congress, and a President that isn't going to veto them.

Say what you will, but Hillary Clinton has been involved in advocating for children her entire career - this is documented and true.

Look at the history of disability. Read the report from the CDF regarding "Children Out of School."

It took MANY people to advocate for the initial Education for All
Children Act of 1975. It even took a Republican President to sign it into law. (Though Reagan tried to weaken the law...)

THAT is how people who know how to get things done in our Democracy do it, and to work on behalf of those who had no voice, like my son, who is 14 and
cannot speak, is a GOOD thing. She has already proposed new autism legislation and it, too, is a GOOD thing.

So, thanks for your reply, but I am awake and alive in the real world with real problems getting solved by many people acting together. Government
and officials can be corrupt, yes. They are human.

But with enough Will and Work, GOOD things can still happen in SPITE of corruption and the lower human instincts. That is the America I believe in
and know to be true, and that is the America I will cast my vote for in November.

She didn't advocate for the children abducted and turned into sex slaves by Boko Haram. Her State Dept wouldn't even designate them as a terror group.
Her totally inadequate response was a hashtag shindig. After coming to terms with that fact, any association of her name with charitable organizations
looks like they were simply all cold calculated political theater serving the purpose as a line on her resume. When the time came for her to act on
the side of young female school girls, she sided with Obama's asinine policy to not acknowledge terror, not the children. #BokoHillary

As Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton Was The First To Blacklist Boko Haram Leaders

State Department Under Hillary Clinton Put Top Boko Haram Leaders On Terrorist List. In June 2012, the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton
identified three leaders of Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," as Reuters reported at the time, noting that it constituted the "first time [State]
has blacklisted members of the Islamist group":

The United States on Thursday named three alleged leaders of the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," the first time it has
blacklisted members of the Islamist group blamed for attacks across Africa's most populous nation.

...[edit for quote length - AB]

"These designations demonstrate the United States' resolve in diminishing the capacity of Boko Haram to execute violent attacks," it said, saying that
Boko Haram or associated militants were responsible for more than 1,000 deaths in the past 18 months. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

State Dept. Blacklisted Leaders, Not Boko Haram As A Group, So As Not To Empower The Terrorist Group. Reuters went on to report that the State and
Treasury departments listed individuals on the terrorist list, rather than Boko Haram as a group, so as not to "elevate the group's profile":

U.S. officials say the decision to list individual Boko Haram members, rather than apply the more sweeping "Foreign Terrorist Organization" label to
the group as a whole as some U.S. lawmakers have demanded, reflected a desire not to elevate the group's profile.

[...]

In January, Lisa Monaco, the Justice Department's top national security official, sent a letter to the State Department arguing the Nigerian group met
the criteria for a "foreign terrorist" listing because it either engaged in terrorism that threatens the United States or had a capability or intent
to do so.

But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it
could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

CSIS: Designating FTO Status Is Not Always An Appropriate Tool To Combat Terrorism. The Center for Strategic And International Studies (CSIS)
pointed out that FTO designation is not always an appropriate tool to "mitigate a given threat." In an October, 2012 study of the FTO status' effect
on Pakistani-based Haqqani network, CSIS argued that FTO status actually hampered the United States' ability combat the designated group:

FTO designation is deliberately left to the discretion of the secretary of state and reflects his or her judgment about the most appropriate way to
mitigate a given threat. As a report by the Congressional Research Service explains, "There may be competing priorities in dealing with a group, such
as a desire to engage a group in negotiations or to use the FTO naming as leverage for another foreign policy aim." The Taliban's continuing absence
from the FTO list, despite also meeting the criteria, is one reflection of these competing priorities.

The key question then is whether designation is the appropriate tool to apply given the priorities in this case. The case for designation relies
largely on its expected financial effects on the Haqqanis; on the diplomatic pressure the designation might exert on Pakistan to oppose the network
more vigorously; and finally on the perceived need for the United States to use "all available tools" to curtail the group's activities. In reality,
however, designation restricts the tools available, and its financial, diplomatic, and military effects on the ground will be at best unhelpful and at
worst counterproductive. [Center for Strategic International Studies, 10/4/12]

The response to Boko Haram continues...

The United States is sending 300 U.S. troops, along with surveillance drones, to Cameroon to bolster a West African effort to counter the Nigerian
militant Islamist group Boko Haram, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

In a notification to Congress, President Barack Obama said an advance force of about 90 military personnel began deploying on Monday to Cameroon, with
the consent of the Yaounde government.

The troops will "conduct airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations in the region," Obama said. "These forces are equipped with
weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security, and they will remain in Cameroon until their support is no longer
needed."

In other words, she was being attacked on this by people who either 1) didn't understand the situation or its nuance, or, 2) were doing it as a
political hit-piece , or, 3) both.

ETA: Boko Haram left negotiations with Nigerian Government when it was finally named a FTO. In other words, designating them that did nothing except
throw them back into their terroristic activities...

originally posted by: diggindirt
I don't know if she has killed the party or not but I do know that in my county, formerly a Dem bastion, not a single Hillary sign can be found. Not
even members of the Dem Executive Committee. A couple of those Comm members have a sign for the Dem senate candidate but nobody has a Hillary sign.
Nor have the Dems opened a campaign headquarters in the county and they say it will be September before they can rent a spot. Now, several members of
that Comm are US veterans. That could explain their reluctance to support the former SOS. Bernie got 55% of the primary vote here and averaged 50%
in surrounding region with only about 7% voting "none of the above."

With Trump's angry speeches and tweets, I would be afraid to put a Hillary sign on anything I cared about. The rage in this election cycle is out of
control.

That's the funny thing---they're not putting them on the roadside either. Not a Hillary sign to be found. The only Democrat sign to be seen is for
the Senate candidate. Lots of folks who won't put them up in their own yards will often go put them up along the sides of the road and at
intersections. Lots of Bernie signs but none for Hillary. Can't even spot any Hillary bumper stickers.
I don't see the rage locally. Most folks are just disgusted with the major party choices. But I have seen what seems to me like quite a few Gary
Johnson bumper stickers. One of the local radio talk show hosts has been mentioning Johnson when talking about the election. Unlike a lot of the
talk radio people, he tends to point out that we DO HAVE options outside the major corruption.
From my conversations, Johnson is taking votes from Hillary. The Dems who can't bring themselves to vote Republican see him as a safer choice than
Hillary.
In our region we've have several county executives go independent, a move which caused a lot of the party faithful to pause. Once people understand
that independents can actually do a better job of leadership because they have no party obligations, it puts the fear of the devil in the party
mullahs. They also realize that the voters actually like voting FOR someone rather than against---that makes them even more scared for their little
fiefdoms.
I'm sorry you're afraid of speech and social media. I'm afraid of snakes myself.

As Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton Was The First To Blacklist Boko Haram Leaders

State Department Under Hillary Clinton Put Top Boko Haram Leaders On Terrorist List. In June 2012, the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton
identified three leaders of Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," as Reuters reported at the time, noting that it constituted the "first time [State]
has blacklisted members of the Islamist group":

The United States on Thursday named three alleged leaders of the Nigerian militant group Boko Haram as "foreign terrorists," the first time it has
blacklisted members of the Islamist group blamed for attacks across Africa's most populous nation.

...[edit for quote length - AB]

"These designations demonstrate the United States' resolve in diminishing the capacity of Boko Haram to execute violent attacks," it said, saying that
Boko Haram or associated militants were responsible for more than 1,000 deaths in the past 18 months. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

State Dept. Blacklisted Leaders, Not Boko Haram As A Group, So As Not To Empower The Terrorist Group. Reuters went on to report that the State and
Treasury departments listed individuals on the terrorist list, rather than Boko Haram as a group, so as not to "elevate the group's profile":

U.S. officials say the decision to list individual Boko Haram members, rather than apply the more sweeping "Foreign Terrorist Organization" label to
the group as a whole as some U.S. lawmakers have demanded, reflected a desire not to elevate the group's profile.

[...]

In January, Lisa Monaco, the Justice Department's top national security official, sent a letter to the State Department arguing the Nigerian group met
the criteria for a "foreign terrorist" listing because it either engaged in terrorism that threatens the United States or had a capability or intent
to do so.

But a group of academic experts on Africa sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month urging her not to take the step, saying it
could backfire by enhancing the group's reputation among potential recruits and other militants. [Reuters, 6/21/12]

CSIS: Designating FTO Status Is Not Always An Appropriate Tool To Combat Terrorism. The Center for Strategic And International Studies (CSIS)
pointed out that FTO designation is not always an appropriate tool to "mitigate a given threat." In an October, 2012 study of the FTO status' effect
on Pakistani-based Haqqani network, CSIS argued that FTO status actually hampered the United States' ability combat the designated group:

FTO designation is deliberately left to the discretion of the secretary of state and reflects his or her judgment about the most appropriate way to
mitigate a given threat. As a report by the Congressional Research Service explains, "There may be competing priorities in dealing with a group, such
as a desire to engage a group in negotiations or to use the FTO naming as leverage for another foreign policy aim." The Taliban's continuing absence
from the FTO list, despite also meeting the criteria, is one reflection of these competing priorities.

The key question then is whether designation is the appropriate tool to apply given the priorities in this case. The case for designation relies
largely on its expected financial effects on the Haqqanis; on the diplomatic pressure the designation might exert on Pakistan to oppose the network
more vigorously; and finally on the perceived need for the United States to use "all available tools" to curtail the group's activities. In reality,
however, designation restricts the tools available, and its financial, diplomatic, and military effects on the ground will be at best unhelpful and at
worst counterproductive. [Center for Strategic International Studies, 10/4/12]

The response to Boko Haram continues...

The United States is sending 300 U.S. troops, along with surveillance drones, to Cameroon to bolster a West African effort to counter the Nigerian
militant Islamist group Boko Haram, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

In a notification to Congress, President Barack Obama said an advance force of about 90 military personnel began deploying on Monday to Cameroon, with
the consent of the Yaounde government.

The troops will "conduct airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations in the region," Obama said. "These forces are equipped with
weapons for the purpose of providing their own force protection and security, and they will remain in Cameroon until their support is no longer
needed."

In other words, she was being attacked on this by people who either 1) didn't understand the situation or its nuance, or, 2) were doing it as a
political hit-piece , or, 3) both.

ETA: Boko Haram left negotiations with Nigerian Government when it was finally named a FTO. In other words, designating them that did nothing except
throw them back into their terroristic activities...

- AB

Lol, it was a vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary responded with a hashtag.

Oh the horror, they might leave the negotiating table. They were raping as they negotiated, while 90 soldiers with their hands tied was just a token
force signaling weakness.

Anyone captured by terrorists expect to be abandoned with Hillary, her demonstrated leadership leads to the conclusion that it is her specialty.
Ambassadors know it. Must do wonders for military morale also.

I assume you missed the RNC, if you think the DNC was chaos and disorder. The hyperbolic echo chamber here is not going to change any minds. If
anything it might detour anyone with a grain of sanity left to steer clear of the crazy con man. #LoserTrump.

THe parties are really irrelevant since we are living in a plutocracy that owns both of them. Until we are able to regain some kind of govt that is
of the people instead of 1 percent of the people, nothing will change, doesnt make a bit of difference whether a Dem or a republican is in there one
iota, whoever is in power will simply further the agenda of the oligarchy.

That is so insane too.
At the end of the libertarianism would tear apart the welfare state, elminate prog tax systems, dismantle all the programs they love, free trade and
less regulation which allows evil big corps more power lol.
libertarianism if given the clout would annihilate almost all democrat policies and programs

I am assuming it is only white democrats who are coming over to johnson. This means that their whole decision to vote is to virtue signal. They don't
like trump bc muh racism due to closing borders and bc he is direct, instead of being passive aggressive. I hope that these voters realize that
libertarian demographics are much more white than republican demographics.

I even voted for Johnson in 12, as Romney was not to my liking.

Until the rest of the libertarians catch up with the group of data and fact driven libertarians about immigration I will have to vote republican.

I was a bernie backer. But the moment he said "we must vote for (the b*)" i changed my vote to trump. It is the only vote that will show the dnc how
wrong they are.

As stupid as it sounds it is the only way we can get the dnc to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

But i fear that for millions of people, this is the end of the democrats.

The only way to make change really happen is through destruction. If you do not believe me.... just look at all of the events that took place in the
entire history of this planet. There has never been a peaceful revolution.

It can be peaceful if we vote trump. but it will be surrounded by a hate war.

In the eyes of the dnc we must vote not only for trump, but completely vote out every democrat sitting in office. That means giving the republican
party full control over everything.

This is the only destruction that can peacefully start a real revolution.

We have survived dumb decisions in the united states now for well over 200 years. 8 years is but a brief moment in time to suffer another "bad
decision." But if we vote in every single republican candidate to enter every branch of government it will finally show the democrats just how lost
they truly are.

a reply to: jellyrev
How would electing a Libertarian president do the things you propose? As I understand it , we are electing a president, not a dictator---at least in
theory. Did Johnson do those things when he was governor of New Mexico?
A third party candidate would have to work with both parties to find solutions instead of throwing petty tantrums like the members of the major
parties do today. "Do it our way or it doesn't get done" is the mantra of both parties currently and we see the mess that happens as a result of that
obsession with party politics.
Libertarians want to end the drain of billions of dollars of our money being poured into the phony drug war and War on Terrorism that hasn't prevents
a single terror attack except the ones they had a hand in planning.
It has been said before but I'll repeat, "Doing the same thing over and over (voting for a major party candidate) and expecting a different result is
a hallmark of insanity." That crap about libertarians being all white is just bunk, pure and simple. The major parties will anything that comes
into their party-obsessed brains to keep the power. People who are tired of the endless wars and destruction are joining the ranks of libertarians
because both parties are bought and paid for by the interests of the military-industrial-petrochemical-multinational-banker fascists.
I just want people of integrity to be in leadership roles. Of the candidates I've studied, Gary Johnson seems to have the best record of being
effective and honest. So I'm voting FOR someone instead of against someone.
Personally, I'm for abolition. Abolish all political parties and confiscate the billions of dollars they're hoarding their campaign chests and put it
toward paying down the national debt. They're the very reason for the existence of that debt which will be passed down to generations yet unborn.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.